Union Says the Third Circuit Ignored Supreme Court Guidance
In its petition, the union blasted the ruling as “contrary to Supreme Court precedent,” citing the 2018 case CNH Industrial N.V. v. Reese, which set the standard for interpreting ambiguous terms in labor contracts.
According to the union, the panel failed to first determine whether the term “hours paid” could have multiple reasonable interpretations — a key step under the Reese framework. “The majority’s opinion will inevitably cause confusion within this circuit regarding how ambiguity is reviewed in collective bargaining agreements,” the filing warned.
The union emphasized that courts must assess whether a term is “reasonably susceptible” to more than one interpretation before choosing which side’s argument prevails. “Case law is clear that the question is not which interpretation wins,” the filing said, “but whether two reasonable interpretations exist.”
Broader Stakes for Organized Labor
Given the Third Circuit’s large union presence, the outcome could have sweeping implications for how collective bargaining agreements are interpreted across the region. A misstep, the union warned, could destabilize decades of labor law precedent and sow confusion in disputes over pensions, overtime, and benefits.
If the panel’s interpretation stands, the ruling could effectively limit how unions negotiate future pension calculations, particularly in industries where overtime is a significant component of worker compensation.
